They include unstated other rights – such as the right to display affection openly in public, the right to have graphic depictions of homosexual love in print and cinema, the right to have ‘the homosexual position’ advanced as part of the education of youth, the right to have homosexual clergy ordained as bishops, and the right to have ‘married’ homosexual clergy lead the flock of the faithful in church service.

Every one of these assumptions is in and of itself a very serious issue, carrying weighty implications now, and down the line. At the very least they require serious consideration.

‘Civilised, Western society’ seems to assume that all of the ‘rights’ should automatically go with the baggage, and that it is pointless, or ‘racist’ to query any of the details. The label of ‘homophobia’ in America and some parts of Europe has become a powerful stigma, similar to ‘anti-Semitism’ or ‘racism’, which everybody tries to avoid at all costs. The widely-prevalent tendency to gingerly step round the topic and profess acceptance is not just because people want to be well-regarded by other ‘right-thinking’ members of their society. There is an economic consequence to it. A public accusation that the CEO of a company has made ‘homophobic’ comments is enough to start a campaign of ‘black-listing’ and de-marketing the company. Many people so accused have had to offer the most abject apologies, or even resign their positions in order to save the fortunes of their organisations. It is a kind of rigorous ‘thought-control’ that seems to have a firm grip on the social behaviour and public pronouncements in Western society. ‘Free Speech’, it turns out, is not so ‘free’, when it comes to this topic.

The resultant effect is that expression of worry about aspects of ‘homosexual liberty’ is left to the extreme fringe of society, especially the conservative ‘right-wing’ of American political thought. Unfortunately, allowing extreme Conservatives to own the argument means that the content of the argument itself would be extreme (some Conservatives may consider it ‘legitimate’ to ‘shoot’ homosexuals). It also means that the ‘decent everyday folk’ would hurry to distance themselves from any participation in the discussion for fear of being thought to be siding with ‘the lunatic fringe’.

There is no doubt that Western society, and indeed all of human society, needs to engage in robust debate about how much ‘freedom’ is too much freedom. In allowing freedom for adults to choose their form of sexual expression and the partners they associate with, and also allowing all the ‘extensions’ and corollary rights that appear to have been tagged on, are we only respecting the rights of a minority, or ‘mainstreaming’ and ‘advertising’ a form of behaviour that previously only existed on the fringe? The difference is crucial. The psychological effect of ‘mainstreaming’ and ‘advertising’ a certain behaviour that was previously frowned upon, especially on the young members of society who are highly ‘suggestible’, does not just teach them that the behaviour is ‘tolerated’, but goes on to suggest to them that it is perfectly legitimate, and (perhaps) worthy of emulation. To that extent, the public display is not a ‘neutral’ expression of individual freedom. Without a shred of doubt, irrespective of what the proponents may say, the chances of occurrence of such behaviour are increased, if only because the ‘silent’ others who may have felt the ‘inclination’ but lacked the courage to ‘experiment’ or express themselves, are thereby ‘liberated’ to ‘come out’. It is important here to remember Sigmund Freud’s theory concerning the inherent bisexuality of all human beings. If behaviour that at least some members of human society are worried about (even where they are respectful of the basic rights of people who feel that way) is ‘perfectly okay’ and is even ‘modelled’ by being put on public display, then the conflicted or ambivalent individual is more likely to ‘experiment’.

There is here a possibility that the ground-rules of social behaviour in the human race are being irrevocably altered for present and future generations.

There is an even more ‘intimate’ scenario to contemplate. The rights that are currently being advanced in Western society include the right to adopt and bring up children. Thousands of children are being brought up by same sex male or female parents. The children raised in such homes will grow used to seeing expressions of affection and intimacy by their same-sex parents, and will accept them as ‘normal’. Although proponents have argued fervently that there is no evidence available yet that such children are likely to grow up as homosexuals themselves, they are at least subject to the influence of ‘modelling’ which, as every psychologist knows, is one of the most powerful influencers of the behaviour of growing children.

Without pre-judgement or prejudice concerning the eventual outcome, it is necessary that society – any society, whether European, American, or Nigerian – sit down calmly to consider all of these facts, all of the immediate and remote implications, in order to reach a rational position on the Homosexuality debate.

How much freedom is too much freedom? Dennis Wheatley, an English writer of fiction and an occasional dabbler into metaphysical matters, once described the prevailing principle of a civilisation ‘controlled by the devil’ and about to implode from its own internal contradictions as ‘Do as thou wilt is all of the Law’.

The Museveni/Mugabe (and perhaps Dr. Jonathan) position is that any freedom at all granted to the homosexual is already too much freedom.

No matter how emotionally persuasive this standpoint is, clearly it cannot be totally right, and it cannot be made totally right by appealing to some fabled ‘African-ness’ that abhors homosexuality. If there are cultural behaviours, folklore, icons and relics that depict homosexual behaviour, just as there are – let’s face it, home-grown individuals who have declared themselves homosexuals, the behaviour cannot be said to be totally ‘alien’ to Africa and the African.